John Roskoski1
Etam in the Samson Narrative
The Samson narratives (Judges 13–16) contain the exchange of hostilities between Samson and the Philistines that transpired between Israel, the territories of Dan and Judah, and Philistia. Our present focus will be on the events narrated in the text of Judges 13:25–15:20, the middle chapters of the Samson narratives. Within this exchange the rock, or cliff, of Etam plays a vital and interesting role. The cliff is first mentioned in Judges 15:8, wherein after Samson had inflicted a great slaughter on the Philistines in retaliation for their destruction of his would-be wife and her family with fire, he took refuge “in a cave in the rock of Etam.” This verse plays a dual role in the text. First, it acts as a narrative marker or boundary, forming a conclusion of sorts to the narration of actions in Judges 15:1–8a. Secondly, it serves as a link to the subsequent episode, the climactic battle at Ramath-Lehi, where Samson destroys a contingent (Heb. eleph) of Philistines with the jawbone of an ass (Jgs 15:14–16).
The next reference to Etam occurs in Judges 15:11, where three contingents (elephs) of men of Judah go down to the cave in the rock of Etam. This episode not only illustrates the fear which Samson aroused, as shown by the number of men marching against him, but also indicates the men of Judah were pressed into service by the Philistines. It is well known that Samson was from the tribe of Dan, which bordered Philistia and had long endured the threat of invasion by the Philistines. By this time, however, the Danites had already begun their migration northward,2 which left their territory to become the frontier between Judah and Philistia, making Judah more vulnerable to the encroaching Philistines.
In Judges 15:13 we are told that the men of Judah bound Samson with two new ropes and “led him up from the rock.” Although the name “Etam” is not mentioned directly, there is little reason to doubt the narrative is referring to the same geological feature. Once Samson was brought up, he was handed over to the Philistines and the Judahites played no further part in the account. This sets the stage for the dramatic battle with the jawbone.
To locate Etam correctly is vital to understanding the logistics of the series of exchanges between Samson and the Philistines. More importantly, a correct identification of Etam provides support and cohesiveness to the structure of the narratives. This contradicts the argument of many scholars, most notably John.
L. McKenzie, who states, “the stories of Samson are grouped loosely; each of them no doubt was originally independent” (1966: 767). In fact, this narrative gives us an historically credible window through which the relationship between the Israelites and the Philistines during the settlement period of Israel can be seen.
Where is Etam?
Over the last 150 years scholars and archaeologists have tried to identify Etam, Samson’s rock of refuge. Four main lines of argument have emerged from these attempts. One argument considers the possibility of identifying the Etam cited in 2 Chronicles 11:6 as Samson’s refuge. This argument is typified by George F. Moore, who surmises that,
the rock or cliff of Etam was in Judah, probably near the town of the same name which appears in the list of places fortified by Rehoboam between Bethlehem and Tekoa.
Moore goes on to state that,
about half an hour south of Bethlehem, near the village of Artâs, is ‘Ain ‘Atan, which is doubtless the Etam of Chronicles and Josephus, and with which the Etam of our story is identified by Stanley and others (1903: 342).
However, it must be noted that Moore, among others, expressed reservations about this identification because of its distance from Samson’s home, the area of Zorah and Eshtaol.3 Josephus (Antiquities 18:2) described Etam as being eight Roman miles south of Jerusalem, near the aqueduct constructed by Pilate to augment the water supply of Jerusalem. Most modern archaeologists identify this site with Khirbet el-Khokh, about 3 ½ mi (5.6 km) southwest of Bethlehem in the area of the Pools of Solomon. Therefore, although scholars proposed the possibility of Samson’s rock of refuge being in the vicinity of the Judahite town of Etam, unresolved problems and objections to the identification have remained.
A second argument is based on the reference to Etam in 1 Chronicles 4:32, where it is the name of a town of Simeon. This second occurrence of the place-name refers to a village occupied by the descendents of Simeon.
It appears in the list of Simeonite villages included by the editor of 1 Chronicles in his treatment of various aspects of tribal genealogy (1 Chr 4:24–43). The differences between this list and that of Joshua 19:1–9 seem to be merely editorial in nature, suggesting that both are derived from a single document describing the territory of Simeon sometime early in the period of the monarchy, presumably before Simeon was consolidated with the tribe of Judah. The omission of Etam in Joshua 19 is most probably a simple scribal error. The location of this ancient settlement is unknown, although it presumably lay somewhere within the transition zone between S Judea and the N Negeb. As with its northern namesake, it should not be confused with the Rock of Etam mentioned in the book of Judges (Kotter 1992: 643–44).
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 13
Some other scholars have proposed that Etam should be identified with Beit ‘Atab. John .J. Lias, in 1896, followed the lead of Tristam and Condor4 and pointed out that
recent discoveries, however, have identified the place (Etam) with Beit ‘Atab, near Zorah and Eshtaol, but within the borders of Judah. This site is located about four miles East of Beth-Shemesh (a town near Zorah and Eshtaol, the area in which Samson was born). It stands on the crest of a rocky knoll, with a rock tunnel of great antiquity connecting the village with its chief spring, the entrance to which can only be found by those well acquainted with the locality (1896: 165–166).
Matthew G. Easton, in 1897, also supported this identification of Etam with Beit ‘Atab. He describes this as a natural stronghold west of Bethlehem. Easton also argues that the 210 ft (64 m) long tunnel is the “cleft” in which Samson hid in his exchange with the Philistines. However, while some Biblical interpreters still argue in support of this identification, historical and linguistic evidence affords it little support.
The strongest argument has been proposed by James E. Hanauer. Hanauer was part of the Palestine Exploration Fund and his first comments on Etam were made in 1886. He states that from Khurbet ‘Orma, possibly Kiriath Jearim,
through a cleft in the rock, one descends by a staircase cut in the face of the sheer precipice on the opposite of the valley to the curious ancient laura and cavern in the ‘Arak Isma’in5 (1886: 25).
Hanauer comments on this site more extensively in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement in 1896. His description is as follows:
Within the boundaries of the territory of the tribe of Judah, amongst the mighty crags overhanging the gorge of Wady Isma’in [Sorek Valley] on the North, a gigantic rock (or sel’a), in which there is a remarkable fortified cavern or natural stronghold…proved by the existence of a small building—perhaps once a chapel—in its mouth, mosaic pavements, cisterns, and the remains of a massive masonry frontage wall, which in the days when hermits swarmed in this country, screened and rendered it a veritable “megaspilion” on a small scale, it was at one time used, like the cave crack is scarcely wide enough to allow one person to squeeze at Khureitum, as a “laura” or the headquarter of a community through at a time. It leads down to the topmost of a long of ascetics…The Arak and its cave form a fastness that series of rudimentary steps, or small artificial foot-ledges, completely and remarkably satisfies…all the requirements cut in the face of the cliff and descending to a narrow rock of the Bible story [of Samson]. The cave is approached by terrace running along the front of the cave, and between it the descending through a crack or fissure in the very edge of fragments of a massive wall…on this ledge or platform…there the cliffs overhanging the chasm of the Wady Isma’in. The also lie huge blocks of stone…[and] ancient cisterns partly
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 14
Michael Luddeni
View from Zorah toward Eshtaol. “And the spirit of the Lord began to stir him [Samson] while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol” (Jgs 13:24).
hewn into and partly solidly built against the precipice rising from the back of the ledge…I would conclude with the remark that with the ‘Arak Isma’in and its “cleft” or gorge so near the other events in the Danite hero’s life [one need not look elsewhere] (1896: 161–64).
This proposal was supported in 1915 by E.W.G. Masterman, who argued that the cave of Isma’in suited the requirements of the Samson story best. Charles F. Burney, writing in 1918, affirms the identification of Etam with ‘Araq Isma’in. However, he states that Isma’in is “near [K]hirbet Marmita” (1918: 371). It has often been thought that Marmita was located in the area of Deir Aban, which is in the border region between Israel and Philistia.
George A. Cooke, also writing in 1918, supports Hanauer and Burney. He states that the
Etam between Bethlehem and Tekoa [2 Chr 11:6] is too high up and too far away. [Baurath von] Schick [ZDPV 10: 143ff], who finds scenes of Samson’s exploits in the neighborhood of ‘Artuf a little Southeast of Zorah, identifies Etam with ‘Arak Isma’in, near Marmita, remarkable for a perpendicular rock with a cave which can only be reached by going down to it (1918: 146).
Following this earlier fieldwork, Victor R. Gold places Etam 2 1/2 mi (4 km) east-southeast of Zorah. He asserts that the platform in the mouth of the cave provides an excellent view of the Shephelah (1962: 2:153). Arthur E. Cundall makes a similar argument, suggesting that
an Etam is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 11:6, but as this was probably between Bethlehem and Tekoa it would be too far away to connect with this [Samson] incident…A site in the vicinity of Samson’s home is much more likely and there is much to support the view that it was a cave in the cliffs above the Wady Isma’in, which was accessible only by descending through a fissure in the cliff-face, wide enough for one person to pass through at a time. This strongpoint, in an area well known to Samson, lay about two and one-half miles Southeast from Zorah (1968: 170).
Most recently, Carl S. Ehrlich places ‘Araq Isma’in or Samson’s Etam on the northern slope of the Sorek Valley near Zorah. He also concludes that Samson’s place of refuge should not be confused with the cities named Etam, as it was probably near neither of them (1992). This placement on the northern slope of Sorek is significant, as the Wadi Sorek was the home of Delilah. Moreover, the placing of Etam in close proximity to
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 15
Sorek and Zorah bolsters the underlying cohesion of the Samson narratives.
Therefore, at this point, the archaeological and geographic evidence point to ‘Araq Isma’in as being correctly identified as Etam, Samson’s place of refuge. The narrative evidence also supports this conclusion. The fact that the Judahites were pressed into service not only speaks of Philistine domination, but also indicates that the Philistines would not have had any knowledge of this geological structure and needed the Judahites’ familiarity with the area. Furthermore, in this cavern Samson could hold off an entire army, assuming they could reach him, as only one man at a time could approach him at the precarious entrance. Therefore, the image of Samson hiding in this cavern is entirely consistent with his reputation as an effective guerilla warrior.
The Significance of Etam
The references to Etam and the proper identification of the cave itself are vital to a better overall understanding of the Samson narratives. From a narrative perspective, we have already alluded to the references’ function as a link, or hinge verse, connecting the episode of the foxes and slaughter with the episode in which we read the climactic battle at Ramath-Lehi. We have already stated that the name occurs in both Judges 15:8 and 15:11, and is referred to in verse 13. This is an important feature of the account. The fact that Etam is introduced and referred to in subsequent verses seems to suggest a narrative cohesiveness, or a strong literary structure. This contradicts the aforementioned conclusion of John L. McKenzie, among others, who argues that the accounts were originally independent and anecdotal in nature, displaying no literary unity.
An interesting and important feature of the middle chapters of the Samson account (Jgs 14–15) is that they display a prominent “up-and-down” motif. Samson “goes down” to Timnah and “comes up” to his parents (Jgs 14:1–2), Samson again “goes down” to Timnah (Jgs 14:5) and his father “goes down to Timnah” (Jgs 14:10) for Samson’s wedding. After settling his wager, Samson “goes up” to his father’s house (Jgs 14:19). After burning the fields of the Philistines and inflicting a great slaughter upon them, Samson “goes down” to the cleft in the Rock of Etam (Jgs 15:8). The Philistines then “went up” and encamped against Judah (Jgs 15:9). Three contingents of the men of Judah “went down” to Etam to bind Samson (Jgs 15:11). Finally, the Judahites “bring him up” from Etam (Jgs 15:13).
Clearly, this up-and-down motif points to the movement of people between Philistine and Israelite territories. According to Israelite idiom, whenever one leaves Israel he “goes down,” and whenever one enters or returns, he “comes up.” However, in light of the situation of the Rock of Etam, Samson “going down” to and being “brought up” from the cleft is no mere idiomatic expression designed to tie into a narrative motif (see sidebar). While the consistency of the Etam story with the overall up-and-down motif is beyond doubt, the familiarity with the structure of the cave seems to suggest that the story originated from eyewitnesses. It seems unlikely that later editors, far removed from the events, writing later in Jerusalem or the Northern Kingdom, would be able to merge such detail seamlessly into this story. However, a later editor would certainly not omit this description because it fits so well with the overall motif.
A Visit to the Cave of Samson
On modern Israeli maps is a feature labeled “Cave of Samson” 2 mi (3.3 km) east-northeast of the modern town of Beth Shemesh. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the site. It is located in the Sorek River Nature Reserve, in a rock escarpment on the north side of the valley. Early explorers approached the cave from above, climbing down steps that had been cut into the rock face west of the cave in antiquity. I would not recommend that route today as the steps are in a poor state of repair and appear to be hazardous. These days, the cave can be reached from the valley floor, as there is a well-marked trail leading from the Sorek River up the steep hillside to the cave.
A dirt road on the south side of the Sorek River takes one into the Reserve from the west. Once opposite the cave, clearly seen above, the Sorek can be crossed by “boulder hopping” and then it is simply a matter of following the trail to the cave. It is an arduous climb, but the view from the cave makes it well worth the effort. The cave itself is very high and wide, making it more of a cavern than a cave. Inside, it is not very deep, although in the center is a “mini cave” which penetrates deeper into the rocky mountain.
The most impressive aspect of the cavern is its isolation and defensibility. It is an ideal location for anyone such as Samson when seeking a safe refuge. To see a video clip of my visit to the Cave of Samson, go to http://www.sourceflix.com/vid_cave.htm. Bryant G. Wood
This familiarity with such a unique geological structure works against the traditional arguments of the Wellhausen and Gunkel schools of thought, who argue that Hebrew and Israelite details were inserted into a secular or folk tale to make Samson more compatible with the Yahwist cult. There is little to support the argument of this account being a folk tale or the creation of a later editor. Instead, it seems to be the result of a blending of credible historical details in a narrative motif based on popular Hebrew idioms.
From an historical perspective, if this proposed identification is correct, two major points emerge. First, we have an account of the conditions that existed between Philistia and Israel in the aftermath of the Danite migration during the settlement period of Israel. We can solidly link Samson’s war against the Philistines, as recorded in Judges 13:25–15:20, to the period immediately after the Danite migration had begun. Judges 13:25 describes Samson’s first experience of the Lord’s Spirit falling upon him in the “Camp of Dan,” which is identified with Kiriath Jearim, one of the first stops of the Danite migration, according to Judges 18:12. With the Danites leaving the area, the territory of Judah would now be susceptible to the pressures of Philistine encroachment.
We see evidence of this in Judges 15:8–13, which recounts
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 16
that the Judahites were pressed into service by the Philistines to bind and hand Samson over to the them. The ease with which the Philistines could freely enter Judah suggests the Danite territory was now vacated and the borders were fluid, with easy travel between the two nations. The Danite migration and location of Etam within the borders of Judah explain why there were no Danites pressed into service by the Philistines. The reference to the Philistines setting up a camp in Judah and “spreading out” near Lehi might suggest they were not familiar with Etam, but Lehi (literally, “jawbone” in Hebrew) was a known landmark, or a rocky outcropping, in the area of Etam (Cooke 1918: 146). In light of the rugged environs of Etam, this would be a very plausible assumption.
The text reads that the Philistines camped (hânâ) in Judah. This term has connotations of “decline, bend down, encamp, lay siege against.” V. Hamilton (1980: 300) explains the term: “In the OT a ‘camp’ is a temporary (never permanent) protective enclosure for a tribe or army.” The term seems to derive from the verb “to bend, curve,” and it may be that encampments were originally circular in layout.
Possibly such a circular camp, i.e. tents erected in a protective around cattle, may derive from early semi-nomadic days. Or the word may derive from the circular lines of a besieging force (Hamilton 1980: 300).
The latter derivation seems to be most applicable to the situation in Judah. This encampment demonstrated a show of force which was indicative of the Philistine domination of the area, as admitted by the Judahites in Judges 15:11.
Locating Etam just over the border of Judahite territory is entirely consistent with the description of events in this chapter. The account suggests a place that would be known to a Danite as well as the Judahites. Since there is no suggestion in the Samson narratives of any prolonged Philistine march or campaign through the territory of Judah, one can reasonably surmise that the areas of Lehi and Etam were easily accessible to the Philistines.
The theory that the Etam account reflects an accurate historical depiction of the events of the settlement period is supported by J.L. McKenzie, who describes the historical accuracy of the Samson narratives, particularly the Etam account, in the following way.
The stories illustrate better than any other OT narratives the relations between Israelites and Philistines. They live in adjoining villages on the frontier, with relations which are sometimes friendly, sometimes viciously hostile. They intermarry. Because of the Philistine supremacy the Judahites are compelled to deliver Samson to the Philistines. The realism of the background of the stories shows that they come from the time and place of Samson’s feats… (1966: 767).
Michael Luddeni
The Sorek Valley, looking east. The cave thought to be the one where Samson took refuge in Judges 15 is located just beyond the hill in the center of the photo. Samson fell in love “with a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah” (Jgs 16:4).
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 17
Michael Luddeni
Distant view of the “Cave of Samson” in the Sorek Valley.
Therefore, it seems likely that once the Danites migrated, their territory, which bordered Philistia, became the frontier area between Judah and Philistia.
It is this frontier area that forms the geographic backdrop for Samson’s campaigns against the Philistines, as recorded in Judges 13:25–15:20. With this backdrop in place we can now move to our second historical point. The location and identification of Etam helps to demarcate the logistics of Samson’s exchange of hostilities with the Philistines, as recorded in the middle chapters of the narrative (Jgs 13:25–15:20). This material, in which Samson is depicted as a Spirit-anointed leader of Israel, details his series of exchanges with the Philistines as they move back and forth between Judah and Philistia, crossing the vacated Danite territory. This series of actions between Samson and the Philistines escalated in intensity, eventually culminating in the battle at Ramath-Lehi.
This exchange can be understood as taking place in two phases, the first of which is easily charted and very significant. It begins in the Camp of Dan, identified with Kiriath Jearim (Jgs 13:25, 18:12), an early stop in the Danite migration located in Judah and the site of Samson’s first charismatic experience. This verse suggests that, under the influence of the Spirit of the LORD, Samson left the Danite migration at this point to drop back and begin his war against the Philistines. This verse does not specifically state any actions Samson committed against the Philistines.
The scene abruptly shifts, in chap. 14, to Timnah. Originally this was a Danite city (Jos 19:42). However, Timnah was recognized as a Philistine town by Samson’s father (Jgs 14:2–3). This implies that the town was lost to the Philistines very early. Timnah and its environs forms the geographical setting for the bulk of chapter 14, consisting of Samson’s slaying of the lion, his wedding, and his wager. After being cheated and paying his debt, Samson returns to his “father’s house” in anger. This does not suggest that he set out after his family in the midst of the Danite migration. More likely, this description suggests that he returned to the area of Zorah, the place with which Manoah, Samson’s father, was associated.
The second phase of the campaign, found in Judges 15, is more difficult to demarcate. However, taking suggestions and indications from the text itself, we can reconstruct the movements of Samson and the Philistines. The chapter begins with Samson, apparently coming from Zorah, trying to visit the Timnite girl whom he thought was his wife and being rebuffed by her father. Samson now plots vengeance on the Philistines and decides to burn down the standing grain and shocks, vineyards, and olive orchards of the Philistines by using torches tied to the tails of pairs of foxes (Jgs 15:4–5).
The first problem is the location of this event. Many authors and interpreters assume this event took place in the area of Timnah. This, however, may not be the case. There are two major textual clues that point away from Timnah. The first is found in Judges 15:6,
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 18
where we read that the Philistines demanded to know who burned the harvest. The answer to their question was “the son-in-law of the Timnite.” Such a designation would be useless if this took place in the environs of Timnah.
The anonymity we see here, where Samson’s ostensible father-in-law goes unnamed, is typical of these chapters; no one is named except Samson. Even his father’s name seems to be omitted. Nevertheless, this verse is a textual indicator to disregard Timnah as the presumed location of the burning of the harvest. To determine the location we must look to other aspects of the narrative.
The first indicator we encounter is in Judges 15:1, which describes the time as during the “wheat harvest.” This verse allows us to place Samson’s encounter with his presumed father-in-law during the spring. Furthermore, this opening verse provides an internal consistency with the event of burning the crops, because only at harvest time would there be standing grain and shocks of wheat. Usually wheat is planted after the autumnal rains have softened the ground and made it suitable for plowing and planting, and is harvested the following spring. This is part of the 12-month cultivation cycle, attested to by a limestone tablet from Gezer, which ran from September to August in ancient Israel. The tablet describes two months designated for the olive harvest, five months of planting and cultivation, two months of grain harvest, two months of vine cultivation, and finally a month of fruit harvest (McKenzie 1966: 338). According to this schedule, Samson committed this act at a most devastating time. Though the olives were already harvested, the olive orchards were destroyed with no hope of replenishment for the next planting season. The grain harvest, which occupied most of the agricultural year, was ruined. It can be assumed that the scorched ground compromised the vine cultivation, which was to immediately follow the grain harvest. Clearly, this was not an oafish prank, but one that intended economic devastation. Moreover, this event turned Samson into an enemy of the Philistine nation. This was an act of national aggression, since burning the crops of a people was a common war tactic (Hindson 1971: 121). Furthermore, it is probably this act which gives rise to the line, “the ravager of our land,” in the Philistine victory song (Jgs 16:24).
The question can now be raised, Where did this act occur? The most logical place would be in the northern part of the Danite territory, in the area of Gath-Gittaim and Shaalabim, or Shaalabin. The reason for this placement rests on the description of the location in the story: a cultivated area that was home to numerous foxes or jackals, as indicated by the use of the Hebrew term (šû´al), which can apply to both animals. Furthermore, this area is close to the border of Philistia, a circumstance that would allow for the Philistines to easily and quickly take over the area in the aftermath of the Danite migration.
The name Gath-Gittaim suggests a cultivated area. In Hebrew the term gath/gat means “winepress.” The term gittaim can be understood as “double Gath” or “double winepress.” It is unclear whether this name refers to the presence of two winepresses or the usual two-trough construction of winepresses, consisting of an upper and lower trough. These troughs were cut into rock at different levels to allow drainage from the upper to the lower sections. The first press was usually done with the treading of feet, and the second with rocks or weights (McKenzie 1966: 928). It is also possible that the term gittaim became attached to this place to differentiate this Israelite town from the Gath of the Philistine Pentapolis. Regardless of the exact connotation of the name, one must remember that in the settlement period in Israel, the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, the winepresses were in the vineyards.
The text also mentions that the olive orchards were burned. The olive tree is the most common tree in Israel, as well as in the entire Mediterranean basin. Because of this wide distribution, as well as numerous Biblical citations of olive groves, there is little reason to doubt the historical veracity of the suggestion that olive orchards were in the same area as the vineyards. However, it must be noted that the olive is a slow-growing tree that demands seven years of cultivation before fruiting (I. and W. Jacob 1992: 808). This detail further illuminates why Samson’s act was particularly devastating, because its effects on Philistine agriculture and economy would have lasted several years.
This area was also well suited for growing wheat. Wheat was grown throughout Israel, but seemed to flourish particularly in the coastal plain and valleys of the central mountain range (McKenzie 1966: 927). Therefore, the standing wheat, ready to be harvested, would be close to the vineyards and olive orchards. Thus, with wheat, olive orchards and vineyards all in the same area, Gath-Gittaim seems to fulfill the agricultural requirements of the account.
We now turn our attention to the foxes or jackals. Admittedly many modern scholars dismiss this account as a modified pagan myth. Some scholars have tried to connect this event to solar mythology, suggesting that Samson, because the root of his name is shemesh (sun), represents the sun burning the crops. Burney sees this account as illustrating Samson as the ancient god of the sun burning the crops with a plague of reddish rust, as symbolized by the red foxes. He also sees a connection to two Roman festivals, the first being a Roman ceremonial hunting of “torch-tailed foxes” at the “circus of Rome,” as recorded by Ovid. The second festival was the Robigalia, a rite during which reddish puppies were sacrificed in the Grove of Robigus in order to prevent a red mildew from forming on the crops. According to Burney, these two rites eventually became intermingled (1918: 394).
A major flaw with this argument lies in the fact that these festivals developed well after Samson, and, in fact, the account of Samson and the foxes may have led to the development of the festival. Otto Margalith proposed a similar conjecture about the “torch-tailed” foxes, suggesting that the account of this event derived from the Philistine term for foxes, “torch-tails” (1985: 224–9). However, his argument is questionable, as we do not know enough about the Philistine language to make such an assessment. Yet, Margalith makes a powerful argument etiologically, connecting the term “fox” (šû‘al) with the name Shaalabim. In the original Danite territory (Jos 19:42), archaeologists have identified this town with modern Selbit, about 3 mi (5 km) northwest of Aijalon and 2 mi (3.2 km) north-northwest of Emmaus, which is usually identified with modern Amwas.
If this etiology is correct, the area around the city would have been known for its number of foxes or jackals. Moreover, since this is a Hebrew etiology of a Danite city, the meaning and significance would not be lost on Samson. Realistically, Samson
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 19
Michael Luddeni
Modern memorial “tomb” of Samson and his father Manoah in Zorah. The inscription reads, “Tomb of Samson savior in his generation and Manoah his father.” Samson’s actual tomb is between Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 16:31).
probably used some combination of foxes and jackals because foxes are usually solitary while jackals can be found in large packs, disposing them to large-scale capture. Whether Samson used foxes, jackals or a combination of the two, the area around Shaalabim fits the requirements of the account.
Therefore, we would locate the burning of the crops in the northern part of Dan, in the area of Gath-Gittaim and Shaalabim. This seems to be the only location that fits the unusual yet specific requirements of the account: an area containing wheat fields, vineyards, olive orchards and large numbers of foxes, which the Philistines could have quickly taken over in the aftermath of the Danite migration.
The Philistine reprisal is merciless and fast. Upon hearing that Samson was responsible for the disaster, the Philistines burn Samson’s would-be bride and her family (Jgs 15:6). Although the details are somewhat unclear, it seems that Samson had stayed in the area after he burned the crops. After the Philistines’ brutal burning of the girl’s house, Samson’s response is equally savage, if not more so. He vows revenge and inflicts great slaughter on the Philistines (Jgs 15:7–8a). At this point Samson seems to be taking a south-southeast movement, into the frontier area and through the Danite territory. This is a clever tactic, as it moves him away from the seat of Philistine power, the Pentapolis (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza), which would have been southwest, along the coast. He moves into familiar territory, the area around Zorah and then to Etam, just over the border in Judahite territory (Jgs 15:8). It is in this rugged area that he makes his refuge.
In sum, this second phase of Samson’s war against Philistia, prompted by the rebuke of the girl’s father, begins in Philistine territory. It cuts back into Danite territory, intersecting with the location of the first phase of the exchange, and finishes in Judahite territory. Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of the logistics of the first phase, which began in Judahite territory, crossed the original Danite territory, and finally moved into Philistine territory. Furthermore, if one looks at the overall geography of this campaign, the trails of the two phases form an X pattern. Samson moves from Kiriath Jearim to Timnah, then from Gath-Gittaim/Shaalabim to Etam, with Zorah being at the intersection of his travels.
Conclusions
With this identification of Etam we see Samson’s war with the Philistines confined to a tight geographic area, spanning the frontier area of the original Danite territory and moving freely between northern Philistia and Judah. Such a depiction fits the historical circumstances that existed in the aftermath of the
BSpade 21:1 (Winter 2008) p. 20
Danite migration. Therefore, we are afforded a window through which we can glimpse the settlement period of Israel.
Furthermore, the identification of Samson’s rock of refuge, Etam, supports the historical veracity of the narratives. Consequently, the identification of Etam helps to negate the argument that the narratives originated in folklore or are composed of loosely grouped anecdotes.
The ultimate importance of this cave is that it helps to illustrate how the land was an integral and vital part of the life and history of the people of Israel and part of the salvation plan of God. The land, and its possession, was fundamental to the identity of the Israelite people and the way they related to the LORD. We also see how caves such as this have played important roles in the lives of some of the greatest leaders in the Hebrew Scriptures, including Etam for Samson, Adullam for David (1 Sam 22:1), and the cave on Horeb for Elijah (1 Kgs 19:8). Caves such as Etam give us a deeper understanding of how God worked in and through the lives of His chosen leaders.
Bibliography
Brown, Francis
1907 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
Burney, Charles F.
1918 The Book of Judges. London: Rivingtons.
Cooke, George A.
1918 The Book of Judges. Cambridge: University Press.
Cundall, Arthur E.
1968 Judges. London: Tyndale.
Ehrlich, Carl S.
1992 Etam, Rock of. P. 644 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2, ed. David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Füerst, Julius. ed.
1885 A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. London: Williams and Norgate.
Gold, Victor R.
1962 Etam. Pp. 152–53 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 2, ed. George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon.
Hamilton, James M.
1992 Kiriath-Jearim. Pp. 84–85 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4, ed. David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Hamilton, V.
1980 hânâ. Pp. 299–300 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1, ed. R. Laird Harris. Chicago: Moody.
Hanauer, James E.
1886 Remarks on the Orma or Erma. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 24–26.
1896 The Rock of Etam and the Cave of Adullam. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 161–64.
Hindson, Edward E.
1971 The Philistines and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Jacob, Irene and Walter
1992 Flora. Pp. 803–17 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2, ed. David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Kotter, Wade P.
1992 Etam. Pp. 643–44 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2, ed. David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Lias, John J.
1896 The Book of Judges. Cambridge: University Press.
Margalith, Othniel
1985 Samson’s Foxes. Vetus Testamentum 35: 224–29.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr.
1980 The Anchor Bible: I Samuel. New York: Doubleday.
McKenzie, John L.
1966 Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee: Bruce.
Moore, George F.
1903 The Book of Judges. New York: Scribner’s.
Robinson, Edward, and Smith, Eli
1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine 1. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.